Vote for science in September

Rational policies grounded in good science are the hallmark of a competent government (Source: nullplus/iStockPhoto)

This year we have the extraordinary occurrence of having a federal election date set eight months in advance and, despite promises to the contrary, it appears that the campaigning has already begun.

This gives us an unusually long period to reflect on the policies and performance of all the political players on every single issue. I contend that an important part of that analysis ought to be a consideration of how the various political parties deal with science and what they propose to do in science-related matters should they win.

Do not think me naïve, I know that science policy will not be the determining factor in this election, nor will any individual vote be turned on scientific issues. But I urge that there is a deeper level to the search for science in this election; it's more instructive to see how the various political players relate to science and apply science to all areas of policy.

Rational policies grounded in good science are the hallmark of a competent government. But policies that reject a scientific underpinning in favour of a purely political agenda can only lead to disaster.

I'm not going to be partisan here so I don't want to deconstruct particular policies that have been put forward. I'm more interested in the flavour of the debate and highlighting what is logical, grounded thinking.

The overriding principle ought to be that the findings of science should be carefully considered in the formulation of any policy and the science of an issue ought to be at the core of any political debate. Why? Because scientists actually know what they are talking about. They are out there measuring, testing and collecting data in the real world then analysing what that actually means. Science deals in physical reality, and why would you want to have anything else as the foundation of your thinking? Evidence-based thinking will lead to the best outcomes in every field.

Respect for science

But beyond simply accepting and incorporating science into policy, I want to see a genuine respect for the science.

All too often in political discussions if the science does not conform to the politics it is dismissed or even attacked and vilified. This occurs right across the political spectrum with attacks on climate science and evolution from the right being matched by attacks on GMO technology, nuclear science and nanotechnology from the left.

More extreme cases of late have seen attacks on proponents of fluoridation with the production of wanted posters accusing individuals of crimes against humanity. This is just plain nutty. Similarly death threats against climate scientists must be comprehensively denounced by anybody who aspires to my vote.

I'm also on the lookout for politicians bending the science or cherry-picking the data in pursuit of the popular vote. Again this has been occurring more frequently in recent years and it has been committed right across the political spectrum. Beware the production of individual experts pushed forward to promote an agenda. It is through considering the whole of the literature and the breadth of scientific opinions that the true scientific position on an issue will be revealed.

Then it's time to take a critical look at the track record of a particular party and match that against their promises for the future. As a general rule of thumb a party that has been considerate and supportive of science will continue to do so while the inverse is also true.

Research funding

If a party has a good track record of encouraging science research through strong funding while remaining at arm's length toward the direction and conclusion of that research, then they will create the political environment where scientists can best go about their job of doing good science.

In an ideal world science would be funded by a process of identifying the best and brightest and then giving them all the support they need to conduct their research. Pragmatically that seems to be too difficult to do in an economy that measures the value of any endeavour by its financial costs and potential profits.

Most research in Australia is funded through government grants and, increasingly, these and other funding sources require some potential financial return sometime in the future. This is dull thinking and limiting to the unleashing of the creative potential of our scientists.

What we need is a system of funding pure research that is generous and secure and not too onerous in reporting. The current Australian Research Council and National Health And Medical Research Council schemes (the major granting bodies in the country) are none of these things. This needs to be fixed. My vote would go to any politician or political party that would propose and instigate a better funding system.

Encouraging innovation

Linked, but separate from research funding, should be a clear incentive for innovation including funds that build that link between pure research and its possible applications.

Innovation is not a bolt-on to the end of a research project but needs to be seen as an economy-wide endeavour that we all have a share in. The world's most productive and stable economies have taken this view and it is paying dividends.

While we are currently a strong economy thanks to our mineral wealth, we must convert that bonus into innovation and education so that we also have a strong economy in the future when all those minerals have been dug up and sold off or the price of those commodities crash. The transition from the lucky country to a smart economy ought to be well underway. There is plenty of room for improvement here within the halls of power.

There are many aspects and details to consider with respect to science when it comes time to evaluating who will take your vote. The most basic must be an overall flavour where respect for science is obvious and the implementation of evidence-based thinking is at the heart of every policy. Then there are the more specific questions of how a potential politician will directly support and fund scientific research. I'm not looking for a working knowledge of quantum mechanics or evolutionary theory in any politician, but they ought to be conversant with basic scientific concepts and appreciate the special quality of data derived from research.

To me, these ought to be pretty simple qualities that should be readily apparent in anyone standing for public office. Yet it's been my experience that very few politicians, regardless of their political colour, can express a general understanding and respect for science, or know how to implement scientific findings into their policy platforms. It's time to change that. A date has been set. But will this election be a win for science and our future?

About the author:Dr Paul Willis is the director of RiAus, Australia's unique national science hub, which showcases the importance of science in everyday life. The well-known palaeontologist and broadcaster previously worked for ABC TV's Catalyst program. This article was first published on the RiAus website.

Comments (15)

Comments for this story are now closed. If you would like to have your say on this story, please email ABC Science

Tony Rodi :

13 Mar 2013 5:43:30pm

My understanding is that there's some rabbit, wearing budgie smugglers, proclaiming that he's not a tech head, and thatclimate change is a load of crap.I think he wants to be Prime Minister.Is this what you're getting at Paul?But to be serious, Local Government in Australia has beendishing out fascist party politics for years.I think that one of the qualifications for local Councillorsand Mayors is a sublime ignorance of science and fact,coupled with an uncanny bonding with their partypolitical mates and other sycophants.

Paul Willis :

14 Mar 2013 2:59:43pm

I deliberatly tried to be non-partisan because I genuinely believe that disrespect fo science and science methodologies are rampant throughout all sides of politics, although there are some extreme cases that are well known.

Snow :

15 Mar 2013 3:16:30pm

I think you miss one other vital piece of information. If you tally up all the degree's and qualifications in politics, those with Science degrees are dwarfed by Law, Economics and so on. How do we expect those we elect to respect a discipline they have never been exposed to

Greg McNamara :

I currently despair at the state of politics in Australia at the moment.

It may have always been cynically manipulative but it seems to have gone to a whole new level in recent years.

I try to assess all policies on their merits but it would be nice to see proposals that place science funding, a deep respect for the scientific method and the fostering of a science literate community at the very heart of national aspirations.

Paul Willis :

Ben of BNE :

14 Mar 2013 10:57:25am

Ironic that a "natural scientist" is using a political statement to try make a scientific point.

This is exactly the problem you are cliaming to denounce. "Environmental science" is more politics and marketing than science. And you wonder why the public, especially scientists like me working in the real world, have lost respect for science!

SEG :

14 Mar 2013 2:15:43pm

err, no.

As an ex-environmetal scientist I can assure you that environmental science is ALL about the science. If it is politicised and marketed, this has nothing to do with science and scientists and everything to do with a general and dangerous public ignorance of the philosophy of science, politician seeking votes via any means and jounalistic quality.

Qskeptic :

17 Mar 2013 12:09:01am

I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly but it strikes me that we do not ‘imagine’ far enough. Science research is funded both publicly and privately and most researchers will bemoan the hours they spend in preparing grant applications which they would rather spend ‘doing’ science. Hospital volunteers raise funds with cake stalls and raffles. It all counts but there is never enough. The politicians are choosing between projects that they haven’t the faintest idea about. They do accept advice from more ‘scientists’ perhaps as to what is the worthy project but there is no body that ‘dictates’ Science funding, it is all ‘asking’ and in some cases begging and pleading. Remember the days when the ambulance and fire services were funded by raffles and cake stalls and public begging.Science itself is actually not a political issue. In an ideal world Science would research a project, define its confidence intervals and present its findings and the parliament would act to reach designated goals. How these goals might be achieved could still be a matter of political persuasion but the goal is achieved. We could for instance simply mandate a reasonable timetable for C02 reductions that would achieve acceptable and stable concentration in the atmosphere. We did this for pollution from car exhaust fumes; we drew a line in the sand and modern cars now produce a fraction of the pollution they once emitted. We can spend fabulous amounts of money on developing a vaccine (eg Gardasil) only to have anti-vax nonsense confuse the naïve such that only 70% of children are vaccinated. How much of that development funding should be directed to Skeptics to inform, educate and warn people against these ugly campaigns? The Law dictates how we shall behave. Even governments MUST obey the law. Yet the Law is a matter of opinion. Even High Court judgements can be majority decisions. Science is far more definitive. Science knows what it knows and how well it knows it! When Science says a fishery is under stress it is not oblivious to the families who live by fishing it is merely stating facts as well as it can. If politically the Science it is overturned there will be no fish left. Science must be given precedence and the authority of LAW.

Paul Willis :

20 Mar 2013 4:45:56pm

Supremacy of science over law is a big step and I don't think we will ever take that (nor am I sure that it is a wise step to take!). But I would like to see respect for science in political discussions and more science (and evidence-based) thinking in the formulation of matters of state.

Stamp Collector :

18 Mar 2013 2:55:35pm

There is the common 'all technology that comes from science is good, just because it comes from science' circular problem in this piece.

I am a natural scientist and am sceptical not about science per se, but when it gets presented as being the same as technocratic thinking. All problems are solely technological and the cooler and newer the science behind a 'solution', the better the 'solution'.

This means blanket approval for anything nanotechnological now or any GMO, say.

The latter often accompanied by nonsense emotional blackmail about feeding the world, when the needy don't get access to expensive seeds as controlled by a corporation. And some of the objections, like

Oh, and it would be madness for any person concerned for research and development (including me despite the rant above) to vote for a Liberal government now beholden to its right wing - profound mistrust of research there and a need to attack spending to fund their promises.

Paul Willis :

20 Mar 2013 4:43:47pm

I don't think that I said any balnket statement about science is good so just accept it and I certainly would not support such a silly proposition. Of course we must retain our skepticism and critical thinking skills and apply them liberally everywhere. But what I am saying is that we need to see more evidence-based thinking and rational decision making in politics. We need to see a respect for science and for it to be weaved through the fabric of policy. This is not happening.